Citizenship Law in India, a Populist Polarization?

Summary: The NRC was established in 2003 via an amendment to the Citizenship Act to create a register of all Indian citizens. The aim back then was to target undocumented migrants, particularly in Assam, a neighbouring state of Bangladesh from which many migrants have come.

Sign up for weekly updates from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

If you enjoyed reading this, subscribe for more!

Personal Information

E-mail *E-mail

Which proposed amendments of the Citizenship Amendment Act will have the greatest impact on the Indian society, and what is the timeline for its implementation?

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), which was passed by the Indian Parliament last December, creates a new path to Indian citizenship for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Christians who are victims of religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and who have found refuge in India before 2014. These refugees would only have to prove six years of residence in India to apply for citizenship status, rather than the twelve years that the law previously required. It is likely to have a significant impact in some regions because, at the same time it was passed, the Modi government revived an old legislative draft, actually dating back to the first government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the National Register of Citizen (NRC). The NRC was established in 2003 via an amendment to the Citizenship Act to create a register of all Indian citizens. The aim back then was to target undocumented migrants, particularly in Assam, a neighbouring state of Bangladesh from which many migrants have come. In Assam, several laws dating back to the 1980s have enabled the expulsion of undocumented migrants who had arrived after 1971 – when Bangladesh was established – but had never been implemented. The NRC’s creation has revived the case. The Congress-led government from 2004 to 2014 had initiated the first pilot projects, establishing "Foreign Tribunals" to deal with contentious cases, and building the first internment camps.

Jaffrelot’s core research focuses on theories of nationalism and democracy, mobilization of the lower castes and Dalits (ex-untouchables) in India, the Hindu nationalist movement, and ethnic conflicts in Pakistan.

The BJP’s return to power in 2014, however, gave these operations a new scope, under pressure from the Supreme Court, annoyed by the process’ markedly slow pace. The NRC was extended to the whole of Assam, where the administration declared, in August 2019, that 1.9 million people were in an irregular situation. New "Foreign Tribunals" have been established, new camps have been built, and so on.

The government is now considering extending this process to the whole of India, by replacing the NRC with the National Population Register (NPR), which would in substance hardly make any difference. The combination of the two, the CAA and NPR, would have important consequences because Muslims with an illegal status, unlike other undocumented migrants, would not be eligible for refugee status nor citizenship for that matter. They could end up in camps that the government recently asked Indian states to build.

As for the timeline, it remains uncertain. Pilot projects are said to have started on January 1st 2020, but the full-scale exercise is expected to start in April – though several states, led by the BJP, have already released figures specifying the number of undocumented migrants they have identified... It is all the more unclear because in February 2021, as is the case every decade, the government is due to conduct the customary census operations following the same modus operandi going door-to-door. It is difficult to picture India carrying out this daunting exercise twice, a few months apart.

Which aspects of the text has the protest movement focused most on?

What triggered the first protests was the use of religion as a criterion for citizenship access. Traditionally, as evidenced by the Citizenship Act of 1955, citizenship in India was acquired by birth on Indian soil (jus soli) or by descent (the son or daughter of Indian citizens are themselves an Indian citizen, even if they were born abroad). The reforms which took place from 1987 onwards tended to fully replace the old jus soli by a form of jus sanguinis as at least one of the parents had to be born Indian (and after 2003, the other parent should not be considered as illegal at the time of birth). The CAA poses an even greater problem for those who hold a territorial definition of the nation: by distinguishing refugees' eligibility for Indian citizenship on the basis of their religion, the government is, according to many lawyers, introducing discrimination contrary to Indian law, and the principle of equality for all people before the law.

The law reflects a key dimension of the ethno-religious definition of the nation that Hindu nationalists have always favoured as well as the age-old problem they have had to integrate Muslims into the Indian nation.

What triggered the first protests was the use of religion as a criterion for citizenship access.

Besides this discrimination, there are two others to consider. The CAA, which claims a humanitarian dimension by welcoming members of minorities who are victims of persecution in the South Asian region, still excludes Muslim minorities victims of persecution in the region (Rohingyas, Hazaras, Shiites, Ahmadis) and several countries in the area where non-Muslim minorities are also victims of persecution: Tibetans living in China, Tamils from Sri Lanka, etc.

Still, the current protest movement has little to do with the issue of religious persecution in neighbouring countries. It is in fact explained primarily by the Muslim masses’ fear of losing tangible rights, a fear which could be described as irrational but is evidently understandable. The procedure to be followed is indeed very unclear. The government has sought to reassure everybody by replacing the NCR with the NPR, where, it seems, it would be possible to register without having to produce any documents. Minister Jawadekar has thus indicated that this list, which is intended to identify inhabitants and not citizens, would be based on information provided orally by the head of the family. But the population’s concerns, and not only of Muslims, remain strong for three reasons.

First, in Assam, it was necessary to provide documents proving ancestry or residence. That task has proved impossible, even for a retired army officer who had found it extremely difficult to leave the camp he had forcibly ended up in.

Secondly, authorities have sent mixed signals, with the press reporting on an internal memo that includes a requirement for heads of families to provide birth certificates of parents or grandparents. Yet, a majority of Indians does not have documentation. Few Indians have a certificate attesting of their own birth – and this percentage is even lower when one considers the most underprivileged classes and the lowest castes.

Thirdly, the law provides discretion over registration in the NPR to local authorities in which Indians – especially those with the least privileges in society – have little confidence; especially since any member of the locality in whose care these authorities are placed can denounce as untruthful the declarations of so and so. Undoubtedly, this is an open door to denunciation.

Is there room for flexibility from the executive or legislative branches?

The government could, of course, give up on implementing the NPR, or make concessions on the CAA. It has no intention of doing so for the time being, as shown by recent statements of Amit Shah, Minister of the Interior, father of this reform and new strong man in Narendra Modi’s government – of which he has been the right-hand man for at least 20 years. The government is playing on decay and polarization. This strategy is dangerous but credible.

The Bharatiya Janata Party can hope to further divide society and bring Hindus together against Muslims

Polarizing may seem like the best idea for Narendra Modi at a time when the economy is sinking into a particularly serious crisis. Rather than attempting to get out of the slump, an ambition for which human and financial resources lack, the government may be tempted to forge ahead regardless. This approach will probably not be thwarted any time soon by the Supreme Court, whose pusillanimity is the greatest since the 1970s. For example, it has not yet taken up the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, which dates back to August 5th of last year. If the judges do not intervene – which could offer a way out that the government might appreciate were the crisis to escalate – opposition party-led states could give New Delhi a run for its money. Several states, such as Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan and West Bengal, have announced that they will not implement the CAA. What will happen if the case goes to the Supreme Court and is ruled against them? This issue is probably bound to hit headlines for a long time.

NPR is a registry of all people living in India. No documentary proof is required. The government has made this very clear. Modi has also said that there is no plan to introduce nation-wide NRC, which is registry of citizens and requires documentary proof. NRC for Assam was forced by the Supreme Court. Note that the first NPR was conducted in 2011 during the Congress party's rule. There was no outcry then. A second NPR was done in 2015. There was no outcry then. There is absolutely no rationale for all this agitation now. The NPR is in no way connected to citizenship.
The CAA does provide persecuted religious minorities in 3 Islamic countries a faster path to Indian citizenship, if they entered India prior to 2014 and can show 6-years of residence in India. All that it does is give these persecuted people amnesty and a faster path to citizen. Note that as recently as 2003, Manmohan Singh (who became Congress party/UPA prime minister in 2005) spoke out in Parliament asking for a amnesty and citizenship for these same group of people . Several Congress party leaders (going back to Nehru and more recently Rajasthan chief minister Gehlot) are on record asking for citizenship for persecuted non-Mulsims from Pakistan/Bangladesh. Muslims from other countries who want to become Indian citizens can apply through other sections of the Citizenship Act. There is no religion test. The CAA has no impact on Indian citizens - be they Muslims or Hindus or any other religion. A massive false propaganda is being waged in India claiming that CAA will strip Indian muslims of their citizenship. The CAA is meant to address the situation a specific group of people who are undocumented in India and have valid reasons for fleeing their country of birth. States such as Kerala cannot decide that they will not implement CAA. They can pass resolutions in their legislative assemblies. Citizenship comes under the Central government's authority, just like defence and foreign relations. As long as we have nations and borders, every country has the right to decide who is allowed and who is not. India is a responsible democracy. While the situation of persecuted people is being addressed through CAA, those excluded from CAA have another path to become citizens, if they choose to do so.

Comment Policy

Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Popular Articles

Featured

The World Unpacked is a weekly foreign policy podcast, hosted by Laura Lucas Magnuson, that breaks down the hottest global issues of today with experts, journalists, and policymakers who can explain what is happening, why it matters, and where we go from here.